Myself it really depends on what Germany does, though my standard moves are, Dest from SZ35 to SZ59, Sub from SZ40 to SZ45, The Subs a 50/50, some people like to take the carrier to the tran as well but, I prefer the Dest Alone. If Africa is going good, Namely if I can retake EGY, then the tran in SZ40 takes two inf from AUS and invades New Guinea (Something nice to try) If I cannot retake EGY I like to use the Tran to pick up 2 INF from AUS and then move to SZ30, then on UK2 drop them anywhere along the Africa coast (Even Persia if it needs them). If Germany takes EGY and you “can” retake it, then do it bringing 2 inf from IND, 1 INF from TRJ and the Fighter from SZ35 (You can also bring your Bomber but I usually don’t). Otherwise I like to stack 2 inf in TRJ and the 3 Indian Inf and A-A gun to Persia. The AC stays with the Tran wherever it decides to go. If Germany is stupid and doesn’t take EGY, then smile :lol: happily and move the INF from TRJ into it, stack 4 + A-A gun in Persia, move the FIG to EGY and move the Tran and AC to SZ33 (Out of reach of the IJN).
The SAF INF always moves up, regardless of what you do.
Making Bombers viable
-
I have to be honest…
I think Tactical Bombers make a better Tech than HB’s (as they are in LHTR 2.0).
It allows a bomber-focused strategy that is not as limited as it is at present with the territory limits, and does not unbalance the naval game to favor HB’s as the primary component of an offensive navy (I have never said that HB’s were not good for killing navy, just that they should not be used alone for that purpose).
-
I do agree Switch, HBs shouldn’t only be used to blow up navy. Usually the first best use is to SBR with them, then switch over later to kill navy. Both parts of 2d heavy bombers are overpowered. The SBR portion of hbs makes the game too much of “hmm who got hbs first and who evaded the aa guns the most?” and the 2d offense makes it basically the Silent Seas in the late game.
-
So just remove HB’s completely and add Tactical Bombing as a tech…
No screwing up the naval game, still adds some very nice SBR potential (or should I say TBR?) :-D
-
Again my thoughts are a way to make SBRs more palpatible against placed ICs that are in lower limit TTs.
And IMO mr dog I think Revised is fine as it is with SBRs. I think the main lure of the game is in the basic core strategies of pushing with inf and transporting efficiently. If you want games with a heavier emphasis on the less-used units/techs/NAs/economic raids, try a variant like AARE. AARE has a lot of interesting things with bombers.
And what is Tactical Bombing anyways, Switch? I didn’t catch that.
-
All that aside does everyone still think with nerfed heavies that going back to each bomber being capped by the territory as opposed to all is such a deal breaker? Or say each bomber is capped by the territory limit with a limit on bombers that can be employed per attack.
When it comes to comparing SBRs in LHTR vs. OOB, IMHO the difference is small. Assuming cap limits per LHTR at PER COUNTRY(JEN), the most the allies can take is $10 for Germany (most likely bombing target).
If US brings in one HB bomber per OOB rules, their average is 7 (2 dice)… could get up to 10, as little as 2. Using LHTR, new max is 7 (best die +1). Max difference is $3, not that significant. You will generally not throw as low as OOB HB’s cause you take the better of both dice +1. Even at a (1, 4), you’re still getting $5, not bad. It’s the cap limits that restraint bomber SBRs, not SO much the mechanism of the taking (2 dice vs. best of 2 dice +1).
Note this difference is more appearent on SBRs over Berlin; Over SEU, it’s even less of a difference.
This leads to the major nerfing of LHTR of HB’s. Only 1 military hit in other ‘combats’. This went too far, IMHO, as to make them an undesirable tech to go for. I’d rather go for rockets.
I guess we would discuss this in theory back and forth all day. We’ll have to agree to disagree as I do not think OOB rules with 2D6 dice are too powerful. Perhaps putting SBR cap rules per territory per round would help that even more, but then I fear no one would buy bombers.
Larry Harris’s preferences be damned, SBRs and bombers were a big part of the war, especially for the allies. Remember the Axis could employ these HB’s too if they wanted.
Again my thoughts are a way to make SBRs more palpatible against placed ICs that are in lower limit TTs.
Not sure what you are trying to get at with this statement. I think you meant:
“SBRs more palatable against placed ICs in lower TTs”Are you suggesting that India should be bombed for MORE than $3 IPCs?
-
@Bean:
And what is Tactical Bombing anyways, Switch? I didn’t catch that.
Allows you to “SBR” a non-IC territory for up to half of its IPC value (rounded up). This would represent the bombing of bridges, ports, etc. that would cripple the economy of a given region.
So if you replaced HB’s with TB’s, you could bomb Berlin, Rome, Paris, Warsaw and Bucharest using 6 BOMs and do up to $23 in damage.
-
@ncscswitch:
@Bean:
And what is Tactical Bombing anyways, Switch? I didn’t catch that.
Allows you to “SBR” a non-IC territory for up to half of its IPC value (rounded up). This would represent the bombing of bridges, ports, etc. that would cripple the economy of a given region.
So if you replaced HB’s with TB’s, you could bomb Berlin, Rome, Paris, Warsaw and Bucharest using 6 BOMs and do up to $23 in damage.
So there is no military advantage to the HB’s, correct?
AAA guns could get a shot at these TB’s, right?Just trying to understand your idea.
-
Tactical Bombing would be a replacement tech for Heavy Bombers.
And yes, AA could always fire at those bombers (same as always), it just broadens the number of potential targets and increases the potential damage. This is offered as a way of making an SBR campaign more viable, though still costly and risky, without having to have Heavy Bombers which dramatically alter the naval situation.
HB’s were not really used at sea in WWII, they were almost exclusively engaged only in SBR and TBR campaigns. So by adding the ability to do SBR’s of ports and bridges in Northern France, to bomb oil fields in the Middle East, to bomb ports in the Pacific Islands, to bomb rail and roads in central Europe… It simply makes the use of bombers closer to the way they were actually used.
I will say that I WOULD combine Tactical Bombers with the “per game turn” instead of “per national turn” limit for SBR damage that Jen mentioned previously. Heck with that limitation, Tactical Bombers might not even be a tech option, just an alternate rule for SBR’s…
-
@ncscswitch:
HB’s were not really used at sea in WWII, they were almost exclusively engaged only in SBR and TBR campaigns. So by adding the ability to do SBR’s of ports and bridges in Northern France, to bomb oil fields in the Middle East, to bomb ports in the Pacific Islands, to bomb rail and roads in central Europe… It simply makes the use of bombers closer to the way they were actually used.
In terms of realism, yeah its just about right o remove HB (or even normal bomber) in naval combat.
In terms of gameplay, it makes players balance between navy and army. (another thing in the carrier fighters)
-
You would still have the BOM available for naval combat, that would remain unchanged. You just get rid of the 600 pound gorilla of how to make Heavy Bombers not unbalance the naval campaigns while still allowing the Allies to use a CBO offensive against Germany.
Suggested Topics
